So it sounds like there’s a compromise stimulus bill. And the Republicans, with the full cooperation of centrist Democrats and praise from Harry Reid, have stripped billions from it.
What have they cut, you ask? Perhaps some crazy pork-barrel bridge to nowhere? Or a lab studying the effect of constant exposure to Gilligan’s Island on dolphins?
Well, almost. They’ve cut from that most wasteful area, schools:
One Republican-proposed document that circulated earlier called for cuts of $60 billion from money Democrats want to send to the states. That money is targeted to avoid budget cuts for schools as well as law enforcement and other programs.
Sure, that makes a hell of a lot of sense! Municipalities are at risk of laying off teachers. So let’s cut money to allow them to keep teachers in their jobs! After all, what does KEEPING PEOPLE IN THEIR JOBS have to do with stimulating the economy and getting people back to work?
And those kids who’ll now be crammed into even more poorly-resourced schools? They’ll still behave, right? And if they skip or drop out, there’s no reason to worry that they’ll get in trouble with the law, right? Especially since there are so many jobs available in the middle of a F**KING RECESSION!…
Sorry…deep breaths. It honestly takes a lot to impress me with political stupidity these days. But this still does it. Congrats, Senators.
(originally posted at my personal blog)
Yup, you’re exactly right. After Republicans managed to bungle a surplus inherited from Clinton, waste billions on Iraq and their own pork projects, and failed to prevent billions of taxpayer dollars ending up in the hands of failed Wall St. executives, it’s patently ridiculous that they now equate education (of all things) with “waste”. There’s a reason the Republicans have carved themselves into the rump that they are today.
<
p>By the way, I am hopeful that this education money (which totals something like $39.8B in the House bill) will be re-inserted during conference negotiations. The proposal to strike this provision was already drawing ire from House Dem leadership before the compromise came out, and Pelosi has indicated that this education funding is one of her top priorities.
.
<
p>But one problem with the federal school aid, as designed, is it creates a bubble.
<
p>The districts’ preferred approach is firing young teachers (instead of the worst teachers) and keeping the 5% annual increases in compensation. Although to Boston Mayor’s credit he is trying for wage freeze to reduce the firings.
<
p>This isn’t the most responsible approach. Federal aid will act as rainy day money — stop gap. It forestalls some of the pain now but the pain returns in 2 years, since the underlying cost structure is largely intact.
<
p>That’s different from a shovel-ready stimulus project.
<
p>2. More broadly…
<
p>Way back in November, the king of max-stimulus, Paul Krugman, called for the princely sum of $600 billion.
<
p>Now the $800 billion deal is too small?
The key, though is creating or maintaining jobs. The education money may not be the same as a shovel-ready stimulus project, but it does mitigate job losses that (1) increase the unemployment rate, and (2) take even more money out of the private economy (through reduced consumer spending by those laid-off teachers) and state public coffers (unemployment insurance and lower tax revenue). It’s meant to stabilize one portion of the workforce, which is good not only for those teachers, but the economy as a whole as well as the children being taught.
<
p>As far as the size of the stimulus package, I think the key phase you used was “way back in November”. While the credit market seems (slightly) better than it did at that time, I think the prospects for the overall economy look worse. So that demands more stimulus than previously thought.
“When I put all this together, I conclude that the stimulus package should be at least 4% of GDP, or $600 billion.”
<
p>Also:
<
p>”Remember, if the stimulus is too big, it does much less harm than if it’s too small.”
<
p>At no point did he say we only need $600B, or anything that could be interpreted to mean that.
Isn’t seniority over performance the rule in most any union job? Why do people only complain about it when it applies to teachers?
<
p>And two, given that I apparently do not talk about religious discrimination often enough, check this look at a teacher on his way out because he was accused of atheism:
<
p>
I find the “teaching of atheism in the classroom” just as distasteful as would be “the teaching of ..insert any religion here.. in the classroom”. Do you?
… teaching of religion in class. It has to be teaching, though, and not advocacy. It doesn’t belong anywhere near science. History should teach about religion absolutely. Most theological discussions would belong in a philosophy class (specialized in metaphysics). Atheism has an obvious place in any meaningful (or even cursory) examination of metaphysics. Less so with history, although any examination of the cold war should delve a little into the US public perception of communism as being allegedly atheist, as well as any examination of the cultural revolution in China.
But I can’t believe anyone had a problem with the teacher if he was just “teaching” about atheism and not crossing the line to advocacy. Apparently there is no question that his replacement was similarly guilty with regard to Christianity. Teaching Ok, proselytising, not OK, not in school.
… how inappropriately sensitive the devoutly religious can get. You even mention taking God out of the pledge or off our money and people start yapping on TV like you want to shoot their dog. As Sam Harris has said, if you really believe in heavenly salvation with conditions, then the pagan down the street is potentially more dangerous to your children than the child molester.
Most of this problem is the American sense of entitlement.
Americans per se felt that they are owed something from the “state.” The guy down the street is on the mammary, so everyone wants on the mammary. People who are in USA unlwafully are on the mammary because they are victims. People in Africa get billions of our $$$ because they are victims. Young woman who are brainless get taxpayers $$$ because they are victims. Habitually unemployed, drunks and drug addicts get a hand out because they are victims. Minorities get handouts because—yes—they are victims.
Unions get taxpayers $$$ because they are victims of technology and corporate shortsightedness and greed.
Corporations are victims of union greed and extortion.
Animals are victims of humans. Children are victims of adults. Women are victims of men.
<
p>Would someone please point me in the correct direction of the victim taxpayer?
Paying taxes is patriotic, so I’ve heard.
So what does the Senate’s proposed cuts in education mean locally? Isn’t the Governor’s budget loaded with assumptions that stimulus aid will fund what the state was unable to fund?
The New York Times has more details:
<
p>
<
p>This is absurd. These would create jobs–particularly the first, second, and fourth items (which expanding Head Start might simply avoid further job loss in this economic climate, just like the school aid in the original post).
<
p>And making government buildings more energy efficient would ultimately cost far less when you factor in the savings–which is not to mention the environmental benefits of refurbishing the holdings of one of the nation’s largest property owners (the government)!
<
p>What are these people thinking? And will the Dems have the spine to restore even some of it in conference??
In the case of the Republicans, they may be thinking, “If the stimulus fails, it will still be the Democrats who wanted it, and we can blame the failure on them. If it succeeds, we can boast about how bipartisan we were, and take credit for preventing ‘disastrous levels of spending’ or some similar crapola. Win-win!”
<
p>As for the Blue Dogs, I suspect they’re thinking, “So far, so good – the rest of my supposed party still hasn’t figured out that we’re really Republicans.”
was expecting $2 million in stimulus aid originally. Now it looks like the $1 million we were hoping for is unlikely to materialize. Given that, the fact we are looking at funding below foundation, and the inability of the member towns to pay, we’re looking at three-figure layoffs in teachers. If the situation worsens, opening our doors will be a real problem.
<
p>Un. Fucking. Believable.
I am a school committee chair in the suburbs. I seek clarification. We too are depending on federal funding, certainly not to the extent that the above post claims. What does a revised stimulus do to the Governor’s budget and what about the adequacy issue as it relates to the chapter 70? Thanks for any clarification.
Are you saying that you are also depending on federal funding, or are you saying that you are too depending of the funding? Reading the line one way implies inclusion, while the other degree. Which do you mean?
We are hoping and depending on federal funding as is the Governor if I understand his budget correctly.
in Chapter 70 and Chapter 71. This year our operating budget is 109% of foundation (the average statewide is 120% of foundation–we are a cost effective/high performing regional district). Our Chapter 71 was cut this year from 85% to 80% (resulting in a half-million dollar shortfall). We are looking at 97% of foundation at best right now with unknown circuit breaker and 70% Chapter 71 reimbursement for next year. Right now 152 districts are projected to be funded below foundation. Unless there’s a boatload of stimulus money bound for education, we’re screwed.
<
p>As an aside, our foundation was supposed to increase in the regular world by $3 million. Now we need to find $4 million to keep the layoffs in the double digits.
What happens if districts fall below foundation budget? Does the Governor and/or the Legislature reallocate chapter 70 dollars? Is falling below foundation budget a violation of the adequacy standard associated with prior case law?
And some of the districts affected are exploring ACLU avenues given the equity issues suggested by the currently proposed allocation of Chapter 70.
<
p>We’re a suburban district with some small member towns who are unable to come close to last year’s contribution.
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
$500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes of Health facilities
$44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters
$350 million for Agriculture Department computers
$88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building
$448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters
$600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids
$450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”)
$600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”)
$1 billion for the Census Bureau
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$6 billion for university building projects
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
$1 billion for community-development block grants
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
<
p> SUCH ORGANIZATIONS AS “ACORN” – THE SELF-HELP
<
p>ORGANIZATION THAT OUR NEW PRESIDENT WORKED FOR
<
p>AND HELPED MANY WOULD BE VOTERS TO REGISTER
<
p>TO VOTE MANY MANY TIMES. ONE CASE IN POINT – YOUNG
<
p>INNER CITY VOTER THAT ACORN HELPED TO REGISTER TO
<
p>VOTE 72 TIMES.
<
p>$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”
$15 billion for business-loss carry-backs
$145 billion for “Making Work Pay” tax credits
$83 billion for the earned income credit
<
p>$89 billion for Medicaid
$30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
$20 billion for food stamps
$4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
$850 million for Amtrak
$87 million for a polar icebreaking ship
$1.7 billion for the National Park System
$55 million for Historic Preservation Fund
$7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs”
$150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases
$150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish”
$2 billion for renewable-energy research ($400 million for global-warming research)
$2 billion for a “clean coal” power plant in Illinois
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
$3.5 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants
$3.4 billion for the State Energy Program
$200 million for state and local electric-transport projects
$300 million for energy-efficient-appliance rebate programs
$400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments
$1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries
$1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees
$8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$4.5 billion for electricity grid
$79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
<
p>
at least tell us which one.
Do not pass go.
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA
It looks like most of these items involve paying people to do something (read: jobs) or boosting funds available to distribute to those who need assistance, both good things. A few of the others may not have a direct economic impact, but certainly improve the overall quality of life for our society.
I think we still need to define stimulus. When we get into the proposed changes to the stimulus package, we hear a lot of complaining about projects getting cut or less funding. Some people even say “…this money will keep people working…”. We is the function of the stimulus to just keep people working? Obviously money spent on anything will keep people working so that argument holds no water. What is plain spending vs. “stimulus” money?
<
p>Is money for education simply paying teachers to work? Is money for municipalities a stimulus? Is funding HeadStart a stimulus or are so many of these funding items simply funding things? I’m afraid we lose support for these bills because everyone is trying to get a piece as usual instead of trying to fight for the money for their causes ont heir own merit. This is a stimulus bill and should limit spending to items which will stimulate the economy, period.